Are you saying you can slap on a fast prime, focus dead center, and then rotate ("recompose" generally involves much more rotation than translation, obviously) the camera about its own axis so the initial subject as seen by the AF unit goes from one side of the frame to the other (or at least from the borders of the PDAF sensors) and significantly out of the DOF and it will track it?

It doesn't look like the camera is rotating much (maybe 5 degrees with a rather wide DOF).

I'll give it a shot this evening with a 5D3 just to satisfy the curiosity.

Okay, it's hard to replicate since my camera doesn't illuminate the point it's using during tracking, so I took some snaps at extremes and, looking at them in LR, it did fine.

However, putting a pronounced object like that on a continuous white background isn't really indicative of real world performance; that's about the easiest scenario imaginable. With a complicated background, I don't know how well it would keep up.

Are you saying you can slap on a fast prime, focus dead center, and then rotate ("recompose" generally involves much more rotation than translation, obviously) the camera about its own axis so the initial subject as seen by the AF unit goes from one side of the frame to the other (or at least from the borders of the PDAF sensors) and significantly out of the DOF and it will track it?

i know what i'm talking about. berylium? please, how about econel? you don't know nuthin' about metals or tennis.

You know enough to list some materials, misspelling both. Inconel? Good old 6Al-4V (I presume your expertise means I need only spell out the alloy rather than the raw material) has a better strength to weight ratio.

AlBeMet trounces them both, and is easier to machine.

If the specific application doesn't require great corrosion resistance and thermal consistency, you'd be crazy to use Inconel with all else being equal.

Whoa..... all of this technical talk is confusing me. Let's imagine that canon releases a 36mp full frame dslr, will that render my "less" resolving lenses such as the 35mm 1.4L, 16-35ii and 85mm 1.2L to doo doo? I've heard that the 24-70ii and 70-200ii are high resolving lenses and shouldn't have a problem. I wonder what happened on the Nikon side with using the same lenses on the D800 hmmmm.....

Heh, so the Canon 500 has equal or better metrics to the Nikkor 500, yet their composite score is the same because... "the excellent dynamic range of the Nikon D800 sensor."

Sure, why not?

And presumably the Sony a99 has dynamic range similar to the D800, so why doesn't the Sony lens, with similar metrics to the Nikkor lens on a higher-than-Canon DR sensor get the best score rather than that lowest?

at least he has his gut to post his out of focus image? how about you? take your best focus camera and try to beat me with my classic canon 7d which number of people in here complain about auto focus... post your similar sharp image like the one below which was taken with canon 7d and 24-105mm f/4...

I like the flower photo - the light is quite nice, but am I the only one who fails to grasp the point you're trying to make with it?

The subject of this thread are some hastily taken photos with questionable focus by a guy who it appears is attempting to drive traffic to his website where he sells stuff.

How is that gutsy? And how did that turn into a sharpness competition?

It could be titanium whiskers in the matrix of carbon fibers to essentially pin the layers together, in which case it would be a fairly small proportion by weight. (Then again it could be white titanium dioxide paint.)

The relevant question is whether either material would make a meaningfully better body; magnesium is affordable and easier to cast and machine than titanium. Carbon fiber isn't really suited to the job of filling fine details and supporting many threaded bosses.

I'd like everything to weigh less, but I'm pretty sure Canon's engineers have a solid grasp what works and is still reasonably affordable. I would dearly like to sit in on their brainstorming though...

Jim

ETA - If I was going to machine a tennis racket out of anything I'd try beryllium; it'd be heavier and your machinist might get lung cancer but it'd be stiff.

It would be very stiff, but if you hit the ground trying to catch a ball on the rise, it might break (since it's also brittle)

-carbon fiber or Ti body. hell my inexpensive tennis racket from Walmart is made from a Ti carbon weave. it cost like $30-40 weights nothing, is super tough. really, get it done canon.

This is a joke, I presume.

I assume as much; titanium and carbon fibre in any meaningful application does not change hands that cheaply.

Jim

Dunno, how much metal is in a tennis racket compared to a camera body? I found a titanium racket at Amazon for $35.

You probably found a tennis racket claiming to be titanium on amazon for 35 dollars. Machining a Ti tennis racket would be costly even if you re-sell unused material. You could machine one out of 12"X36"X.5" plate, and the raw material alone would cost on the order of $1000. Besides, titanium would be a strange choice for a tennis racket. There may be some Titanium in the racket, just like risc32 may have a carbon fiber or two in his (a Ti/Carbon hybrid weave? I call BS), but the majority of the structure is likely fiberglass.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where terms with literal meaning have been co-opted by marketing departments.

Indeed. And just think what a field day those folks will have after DxO's BS comes out.

See there you go again. You mock 'DRoners' and object to being called a fanboy, but then you just flat out go around calling everyone on DxO BS even though you know that is not true. It's one thing to say that not everyone will shot a lot of high DR scenes and that some won't care, it's another thing to try to sneak in as many statements as possible to make even DxO's raw plot numbers seem like BS.

When Neuro says "DxO's BS," he's invoking the acronym "biased scores," not the one you're thinking of. The raw plot numbers aren't a consideration, just the umbrella scores with undisclosed criteria (such as weighting, aka bias).